Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
LV Degao - Appellant
Versus
HTC Corporation - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 169 of 2022 & CM Appl. 29966 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property - Trade Mark Law
Headnote
(B) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29(4) - Court found prima facie that respondent's trade mark is well-known and the appellants' use of their mark was dishonest and aimed at gaining an unfair advantage from the respondent's reputation. (Paras 28-30)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, engaged in manufacturing hair grooming appliances, attempted to use a mark identical to that of the respondent, HTC Corporation, which holds extensive trade mark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, claiming infringement and passing off.
Findings of Court:
Court held that the appellants' use of the trade mark was not bona fide and allowed the injunction to protect the respondent’s well-known mark from confusion in the market.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the legitimacy of the appellants' use of the trade mark and the adequacy of the respondent's claim for it being a well-known mark.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the appellants' actions in adopting the trade mark were found dishonest, affirming that the likelihood of consumer confusion warranted protective measures for the respondent’s mark.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of parties and trademarks involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background of trademark registrations and disputes (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. interim injunction granted based on prima facie merits (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. appellants' arguments against non-bona fide use findings (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court's observation on potential consumer confusion (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. evaluation of the appellants' trademark adoption rationale (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final dismissal of appeal with costs (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellants have filed the present intra court appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, impugning the order dated 06.04.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 5795/2020 in CS(COMM) 263/2020. By the impugned order the court allowed the respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and restrained the appellants from manufacturing, selling, supplying, offering for sale, including through online platforms, exporting, importing, directly or indirectly dealing, using the Trade Marks registered in favour of the respondent 
and/or any othertrade mark/device/logo which may be identical with or deceptively similar tothe respondent's trade mark/trade name.
2. The appellants are inter alia engaged in manufacturing of electric hair trimmers, hair clippers and hair dryers in China and exporting/supplying the same to India.
3. HTC Corporation (hereafter `the respondent') is a company incorporated under the laws of Taiwan and engaged in the business of manufacturing consumer electronic items such as smartphones, mobile phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, virtual reality head-mounted displays, etc. The respondent states that it was incorporated in 1997 as "High Tech Computer Corporation". The respondent claims that it changed its name to the acronym "HTC Corporation" in the year 2008 due to the growing popularity of their "HTC" brand.
4. The respondent claims that it is the registered owner of the trademark, 
in over 90 countries. It also claims that it has applied for and has been granted registration of various trade marks in India. The tabular statement setting out the details of the marks owned by the respondent, as set out in the plaint, is reproduced below:
| "Trade Mark Registration No. and Date | Trade Mark | Class | Description of Goods | Renewal Status |
| 1645578 24/1/2008 |  | 9 | Mobile Phones; video phones; smart phones; personal digital assistants; voice over internet protocol phones; camera phones; tablet computers; slim computers; ultra mobile personal computers; accessories for the above goods, namely, headset, headsets with wireless transmission function, synchronization cable, cradle, battery, AC adaptor, chargers, etc. | Renewed and valid till 24/1/2028 |
| 1451016 12/5/2006 |  | 9 | Mobile phones, video phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants (PDA); voice over internet protocol (VOIP) phones; camera phones; tablet computers; slim computer; ultra mobile personal computers (UMPC); accessories for the above goods, headset, bluetooth headset, synchronization cable, cradle, battery, AC adaptor, etc. | Renewed and valid till 12/5/2026 |
| 2239238 24/11/2011 |  | 9 | Mobile phones, smartphones, wireless phones, wireless devices, portable computers and personal digital assistants, computer hardware and software for mobile, portable and wireless devices; user interface software; computer hardware and software for user interfacing, telecommunications and telecommunications services; wireless modems; headsets, connection cables, cradles, mounts, power adaptors, chargers, remote controls, keyboards, microphones etc. | Renewed and valid till 24/11/2021 |
5. The respondent claims to the registered owner of the following formative Trade Marks in India:
| "Sl. No. | Trade Mark Registration No. and Date | Trade Mark | Class | Status |
| 1. | 2215248 04/10/2011 | HTC LISTEN | 9, 35 & 38 | Registered and valid |
 | ||||
